September 11, 2007

Not the same thing, of course. Now that AP- Ipsos
has weighed in, along with CNN, USA/Gallup, WaPo, and Ny Times/CBS,
it's helpful to look at the trends and analysis Prof. Charles Franklin
has pulled to gather at pollster.com and his home at Political Arithmetik. Franklin helps explain (at least in part) the cognitive dissonance seen in today's headlines. For example, there's

AP Poll: Most See Iraq War As Failure
The public sees the Iraq war as a failure and thinks the U.S. troop
buildup there has not worked, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos
poll suggesting the tough sell President Bush faces in asking Congress
and voters for more time.

The pessimism expressed by most people — including significant
minorities of Republicans — contrasted with the brighter picture
offered by Gen. David Petraeus. The chief U.S. commander in Iraq told
Congress on Monday that the added 30,000 troops have largely achieved
their military goals and could probably leave by next summer, though he
conceded there has been scant political progress.

By 59 percent to 34 percent, more people said they believe history
will judge the Iraq war a complete or partial failure than a success.
Those calling it a failure included eight in 10 Democrats, three in 10
Republicans and about six in 10 independents, the poll showed — ominous
numbers for a president who hopes to use a nationally televised address
later this week to keep GOP lawmakers from joining Democratic calls for
a withdrawal.

Rather than picking apart the individual polls, take a look at these trends (click for bigger pic) Prof. Franklin has put together.

Franklin astutely notes:

Bottom line: Frustrated anti-war forces are understandably angry
that the 2006 election victory and subsequent Democratic Congress has
failed to bring change to Iraq policy. The trend lines above show how
support for the war has declined dramatically since 2003. Anti-war
forces can correctly point to substantial majorities who are critical
of various aspects of the war.

But change in Congress also requires that Republican members
perceive that opinion against the war is so overwhelming that it is
time for them to also abandon ship. That mark in public opinion has not
been reached. So long as a substantial minority (say 40%+) support the
current policy (or at least oppose a rapid withdrawal) then Republicans
can count on a public that is too divided on the issue to pose the
certainty of electoral catastrophe. This isn't to say Republicans don't
wish the issue would go away, or that they relish running in 2008 with
nearly 6 years of inconclusive war on their watch. But opponents of the
war will not prevail in Congress unless a more massive opposition
emerges--- and one united on the specific details of how to end the
war.

Franklin notes that there are three groups here, those who want to
stay the course, those who want out asap and everyone else, roughly in
thirds (something we have noted here as well). However, Franklin points
out out that rejection of Bush (blue line) is greater than accepting
the war as a mistake (purple line). This is why Bush needs Petraeus to
be the front man (and why we need to be clear that this is the
unpopular Bush's unpopular war). What the cautious Prof. Franklin
doesn't note is that 'rapid withdrawal' is not the same as "deliberate
withdrawal" or "responsible withdrawal" or withdrawal with honor" or
whatever the heck you want to call it. The 'swing vote', if you want to
put it that way favors withdrawal and is just as fed up as the rest of
us about how things are going both in Iraq and in the country as a whole.

What will happen is that the GOP and their shills will push the line
that 'the President got what he want'. That's all smoke and mirrors.
The conflicting independent reports preceding yesterday led to a rather
lackluster set of media reports about the Petraeus hearing. GOP
congresspeople have to be disappointed their cover is as thin as it is
in preparation for Mr. Clinch-The-Deal's Presidential address. Bush
runs the risk now of driving away any waverers in his next inarticulate
defense of "stay the course" (see graph - he is wildly mistrusted on
Iraq).

The public opinion trends are not going to be reversed (see Matthew Dowd):

In the public's mind, the Iraq War was a mistake, and continuing the
status quo is simply continuing on with a mistake. As a result, most
Americans now view the situation in Iraq as a "rearview" mirror issue
-- meaning that the public believes it is time to focus on the process
of ending our involvement and getting out quickly. They see American
troops as targets in a place we aren't wanted, and they desire a plan
which achieves responsible withdrawal in the quickest and safest way.

Rudolph W. Giuliani has been broadcasting radio advertisements in
Iowa and other states far from the city he once led stating that as
mayor of New York, he "turned a $2.3 billion deficit into a
multibillion dollar surplus."

The assertion, which Mr. Giuliani has repeated on the trail as he
has promoted his fiscal conservatism, is somewhat misleading,
independent fiscal monitors said. In fact, Mr. Giuliani left his
successor, Michael R. Bloomberg, with a bigger deficit than the one Mr.
Giuliani had to deal with when he arrived in 1994. And that deficit
would have been large even if the city had not been attacked on Sept.
11, 2001.

"He inherited a gap, and he left a gap for his successor," Ronnie
Lowenstein, the director of the city’s Independent Budget Office, a
nonpartisan agency that monitors the city budget, said of Mr. Giuliani.
"The city was budgeting as though the good times were not going to end,
but sooner or later they always do."

Given the advanced start to the 2008 presidential campaigns, one of
the uncertainties hanging over the process has been the degree to which
voter preferences for the Democratic and Republican nominations might
change as some of the candidates inevitably become more familiar to the
public. Do the early frontrunners have a greater chance of being
overtaken than early frontrunners in previous elections?

The bottom line is this, as summarized by pollster. com:

Saad's analysis is well worth reading in full, but here is the gist:
Slightly less than half (46%) of Republican's nationally know Rudy
Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson well enough to
rate all four. Among these voters, Giuliani trails Fred Thompson by
eight points (33% to 25%). Giuliani's double digit national
lead in Gallup's polling comes entirely from the 54% of Republicans who
are unfamiliar with one of the top four candidates (bolded mine)...

Among Democrats, the pattern is different. Less than one in four
Democrats (23%) is not yet familiar with each of the three best known
candidates, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. While
Clinton holds a very wide lead over Barack Obama (53% to 17%) among
those who are unfamiliar with one of the candidates, she still leads by
a comfortable 13 point margin (43% to 30%) with Edwards finishing a
distant third (with 13%) even among those who know all three candidates.

July 26, 2007

A look at the profile of the 29 percent who want to pull out all troops now produces a somewhat unconventional picture.

Women are more likely than men to back immediate withdrawal (33
percent to 23 percent). Support for an immediate withdrawal is highest
in the West (34 percent) and lowest in the South (24 percent). Thirty
four percent of black voters supported an immediate withdrawal, as did
26 percent of whites.

None of those figures is terribly surprising.

But how about the fact that there isn't any statistical difference
between liberals and moderates? Twenty-eight percent of self-identified
liberals backed immediate withdrawal, while a similar 27 percent of
moderates felt the same way.

...

The poll data suggests any attempt to put a definitive label on
those who favor immediate withdrawal (liberals, young people, Obama
supporters) falls short. The reality is that the war as a political
issue is far too complicated to boil down into neatly-packed subgroups.

The analysis speaks for itself. Trying to put 'far left' labels on this won't stick any more than calling 65% disapproval of Bush's performance 'far left'.

July 01, 2007

Come election time, one of our favorite things to do is argue over discuss how best to reach the independent voter, and whether it matters if we do.

In 2004, there seemed fewer of them than in 2006, but in fact, they
always exist and roughly speaking, range from 20 to 33% of the
electorate truly in play depending on the year. This WaPo-Henry J Kaiser-Harvard poll puts some further data behind the discussion:

Wood, Welch and McClure all describe themselves as political
independents. Wood is a classic swing voter, while Welch and McClure
generally side with one party. They represent two of the five types of
independents revealed in a new, in-depth study by The Washington Post
in collaboration with the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard
University.

The study is a comprehensive examination of a broad segment of the
electorate -- about three in 10 voters call themselves independents --
that is poised to play the role of political power broker in 2008.
Independents split their votes between President Bush and Kerry in 2004
but shifted decisively to the Democrats in 2006, providing critical
support in the Democratic takeover of the House and the Senate.

The new survey underscores the Republican Party's problems heading
into 2008. Fueled by dissatisfaction with the president and opposition
to the Iraq war, independents continue to lean heavily toward the
Democrats. Two-thirds said the war is not worth fighting, three in five
said they think the United States cannot stabilize Iraq, and three in
five believed that the campaign against terrorism can succeed without a
clear victory in Iraq.

From the article:

Fifty years ago, independents accounted for about a quarter of all
adults. Today, that proportion is between three in 10 and four in 10,
depending on the survey. In most states that have party registration,
independents or those who decline to state a party preference are the
fastest-growing segment of voters, according to Curtis Gans, director
of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate.

Independents mirror the population in terms of age, income and
education. But they are disproportionately male. A majority of
independents are men, while a majority of Democrats are women and the
GOP is typically divided evenly between men and women.

Independents also are more secular than the overall electorate. Four
in 10 in the new study would like to see religion have less influence
on politics and public life than it does now. Almost a fifth say they
have no religion.

One of the discussion points going forward will be how best to reach
this collection of voters (the approach to the disguised partisan will
likely not work with the disengaged or disillusioned) and how not to
alienate everyone else in the process.

June 27, 2007

As we look forward to the Fourth of July holiday next week, when Congress goes home to face the voters (and you have a chance to reach them locally to tell them what you think), word comes via the NY Times that the Next Generation is looking promising. A Times/CBS News/MTV poll on those 17-29 (born between 1978 and 1990) finds this group, which straddles Generation X (born 1962-1981) and the Millenial Generation (born 1982 to 2001), to be one of the more liberal generations in recent memory.

Among the more remarkable findings, since giving Mister Bush a more than 80% favorable rating after 2001,

They have continued a long-term drift away from the Republican Party. And although they are just as worried as the general population about the outlook for the country and think their generation is likely to be worse off than that of their parents, they retain a belief that their votes can make a difference, the poll found.

More than half of Americans ages 17 to 29 — 54 percent — say they intend to vote for a Democrat for president in 2008. They share with the public at large a negative view of President Bush, who has a 28 percent approval rating with this group, and of the Republican Party. They hold a markedly more positive view of Democrats than they do of Republicans.

In part, their positive view of Democrats may come from a sense of shared values as well as disillusionment with GOP incompetence. For the first time in decades more young people describe themselves as liberal (28%) than conservative (27%). Moreover,

By a 52 to 36 majority, young Americans say that Democrats, rather than Republicans, come closer to sharing their moral values, while 58 percent said they had a favorable view of the Democratic Party, and 38 percent said they had a favorable view of Republicans.

Asked if they were enthusiastic about any of the candidates running for president, 18 percent named Mr. Obama, of Illinois, and 17 percent named Mrs. Clinton, of New York. Those two were followed by Rudolph L. Guiliani, a Republican, who was named by just 4 percent of the respondents.

The survey also found that 42 percent of young Americans thought it was likely or very likely that the nation would reinstate a military draft over the next few years — and two-thirds said they thought the Republican Party was more likely to do so. And 87 percent of respondents said they opposed a draft.

Surprisingly, they are more optimistic than their elders that the US will be successful in Iraq, with a bare (51%) majority finding that the US very or somewhat likely to succeed in Iraq. They are pessimistic about the future--70% said the country is on the wrong track and 48% expect their generation to be worse off than their parents. But 58% say their are paying attention to next year's election and 77% thought their generation's votes would significantly affect the 2008 Presidential election.

May 05, 2007

It’s hard to say which is worse news for Republicans: that George W. Bush now has the worst approval rating of an American president in a generation, or that he seems to be dragging every ’08 Republican presidential candidate down with him. But According to the new NEWSWEEK Poll, the public’s approval of Bush has sunk to 28 percent, an all-time low for this president in our poll, and a point lower than Gallup recorded for his father at Bush Sr.’s nadir. The last president to be this unpopular was Jimmy Carter who also scored a 28 percent approval in 1979. This remarkably low rating seems to be casting a dark shadow over the GOP’s chances for victory in ’08. The NEWSWEEK Poll finds each of the leading Democratic contenders beating the Republican frontrunners in head-to-head matchups.

Of course, the main topic there is the Hillary vs Obama horserace, but that's of less interest this early on. For those who care, Obama has moved ahead in polling, though Craig Crawford thinks in the end it's all about who has bigger cojones on terrorism.

Remember, what's good for America is good for the troops. What's on your mind?

March 01, 2007

In the months since the Congressional elections, President Bush has
lost substantial support among members of his own party, according to
the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

Mr. Bush’s approval rating dropped 13 percentage points since last fall among Republicans,
65 percent of whom now say they approve of the way he is handling his
job as president, compared with 78 percent last October.

And that approval rating?

Over all, Mr. Bush’s job approval remains at one of its lowest
points, with 29 percent of all Americans saying they approve of the way
he is doing his job, compared with 34 percent at the end of October.
Sixty-one percent disapproved, compared with 58 percent in October,
within the margin of sampling error.

Twenty-three percent of
those polled approved of the way Mr. Bush is dealing with the situation
in Iraq. Twenty-five percent approved of his handling of foreign
policy.

Even the president’s campaign against terrorism, long
his signature issue, is seen positively by only 40 percent of those
polled, while 53 percent disapprove.

The worst President ever is on his way to being recognized as such by everyone, not just us. How does it feel to be so... mainstream in our thinking?

February 24, 2007

Pollster.com (yes, they're around, even in the inter-election period) has a nice bit of graphic data on the Republican and Democratic state of mind, with regard to the front runners for 2008 (more here from Polling Report).

While we tend to focus on the Dems (and Hillary-Obama), the Republican numbers are fascinating. John McCain, battered by his iraq support and befuddled by his religious right base problems, can no longer legitimately be considered the front runner. while Rudy has his issues, particularly in Republican primary-land, he is starting to run up some impressive numbers against McCain and Newt, the third place finisher in the latest polls.

Given the unhappiness of the religious right about all of these candidates, it's about time the DC press corps starts doing some straight talk about McCain's diminishing chances to be President. Besides being a panderer when it comes to issues that used to matter to him (the link is to a story about his Discovery Institute-sponsored talk, which puts him in bed with creationism), Iraq is killing his chances with thinking America. McCain is just another 'do anything to be President' candidate, and is likely to be rejected by everyone across the political spectrum because of it. The numbers don't lie.

January 22, 2007

President Bush on Tuesday night gets another shot at
persuading Americans to support his Iraq war strategy and domestic
agenda. His problem: Much of the public has stopped listening.

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll on the eve of
Mr. Bush's State of the Union address underscores the extent to which
he has lost the nation's ear. Just 22% of Americans say they want the
president to set policy for the country, while 57% want Congress to do
so. Two-thirds say his performance in office is unlikely to get better
in his last two years as president.

Who are the 1/3 that think his performance can get better? Those who think it can't get any worse? Here's McClatchey:

Facing a hostile Congress and a skeptical public, President Bush
will use his State of the Union speech Tuesday to try to leverage his
rapidly diminishing clout behind a series of new proposals.

In his seventh annual address to Congress, Bush will offer to work
with lawmakers on a handful of domestic issues while urging them to
support his plans for Iraq. He'll call for expanding health-insurance
coverage, tout a foreign guest-worker program and offer initiatives
intended to slow global warming.

But he's never gone to Capitol Hill under such difficult
circumstances, and he's so weak politically that his effort to set the
national agenda is unlikely to succeed, for Democrats didn't win power
to follow his lead.

He'll speak at 9 p.m. EST to a Congress controlled by his political
opponents and to a national television audience that's lost confidence
in him. A new ABC News-Washington Post poll released Monday found that
Bush was more unpopular on the eve of this State of the Union speech
than any president since Richard Nixon in 1974, during the Watergate
scandal.

All the polls can be found here graphically and here via chart. The fact is that Bush is clearly in Nixon territory... and clearly recognized by the American public as someone on the decline. The NBC/WSJ says:

Both Journal/NBC pollsters say Mr. Bush may be able to improve his
standing by accommodating his reduced stature and the loss of his
Republican congressional majorities with a revamped policy agenda. To
some degree, the White House has signaled plans to attempt just that.

Seeing is believing, but the opportunity to reach across the aisle may already have come and gone. In any case, adapting to the new reality requires the ability to understand and accept that reality. So far, I think it's fair to consider mr. Bush an underachiever in this area.